G.R. No.

196049 June 26, 2013 The Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

MINORU FUJIKI, PETITIONER, A few days after the filing of the petition, the RTC immediately issued an Order dismissing the
vs. petition and withdrawing the case from its active civil docket.7 The RTC cited the following
MARIA PAZ GALELA MARINAY, SHINICHI MAEKARA, LOCAL CIVIL provisions of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of
REGISTRAR OF QUEZON CITY, AND THE ADMINISTRATOR AND CIVIL Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC):
REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL STATISTICS
OFFICE,RESPONDENTS.
Sec. 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages.

DECISION
(a) Who may file. A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed
solely by the husband or the wife.
CARPIO, J.:
xxxx
The Case
Sec. 4. Venue. The petition shall be filed in the Family Court of the province or city where
This is a direct recourse to this Court from the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 107, the petitioner or the respondent has been residing for at least six months prior to the date of
Quezon City, through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filing, or in the case of a non-resident respondent, where he may be found in the Philippines, at
on a pure question of law. The petition assails the Order1 dated 31 January 2011 of the RTC in the election of the petitioner. x x x
Civil Case No. Q-11-68582 and its Resolution dated 2 March 2011 denying petitioners
Motion for Reconsideration. The RTC dismissed the petition for "Judicial Recognition of
The RTC ruled, without further explanation, that the petition was in "gross violation" of the
Foreign Judgment (or Decree of Absolute Nullity of Marriage)" based on improper venue and
above provisions. The trial court based its dismissal on Section 5(4) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC
the lack of personality of petitioner, Minoru Fujiki, to file the petition.
which provides that "[f]ailure to comply with any of the preceding requirements may be a
ground for immediate dismissal of the petition."8 Apparently, the RTC took the view that only
The Facts "the husband or the wife," in this case either Maekara or Marinay, can file the petition to
declare their marriage void, and not Fujiki.
Petitioner Minoru Fujiki (Fujiki) is a Japanese national who married respondent Maria Paz
Galela Marinay (Marinay) in the Philippines2 on 23 January 2004. The marriage did not sit well Fujiki moved that the Order be reconsidered. He argued that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC
with petitioners parents. Thus, Fujiki could not bring his wife to Japan where he resides. contemplated ordinary civil actions for declaration of nullity and annulment of marriage. Thus,
Eventually, they lost contact with each other. A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not apply. A petition for recognition of foreign judgment is a
special proceeding, which "seeks to establish a status, a right or a particular fact,"9 and not a
civil action which is "for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress
In 2008, Marinay met another Japanese, Shinichi Maekara (Maekara). Without the first
of a wrong."10 In other words, the petition in the RTC sought to establish (1) the status and
marriage being dissolved, Marinay and Maekara were married on 15 May 2008 in Quezon
concomitant rights of Fujiki and Marinay as husband and wife and (2) the fact of the rendition
City, Philippines. Maekara brought Marinay to Japan. However, Marinay allegedly suffered
of the Japanese Family Court judgment declaring the marriage between Marinay and Maekara
physical abuse from Maekara. She left Maekara and started to contact Fujiki. 3
as void on the ground of bigamy. The petitioner contended that the Japanese judgment was
consistent with Article 35(4) of the Family Code of the Philippines 11 on bigamy and was
Fujiki and Marinay met in Japan and they were able to reestablish their relationship. In 2010, therefore entitled to recognition by Philippine courts.12
Fujiki helped Marinay obtain a judgment from a family court in Japan which declared the
marriage between Marinay and Maekara void on the ground of bigamy. 4 On 14 January 2011,
In any case, it was also Fujikis view that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC applied only to void
Fujiki filed a petition in the RTC entitled: "Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment (or
marriages under Article 36 of the Family Code on the ground of psychological
Decree of Absolute Nullity of Marriage)." Fujiki prayed that (1) the Japanese Family Court
incapacity.13 Thus, Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC provides that "a petition for
judgment be recognized; (2) that the bigamous marriage between Marinay and Maekara be
declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages may be filed solely by the husband or the
declared void ab initiounder Articles 35(4) and 41 of the Family Code of the Philippines;5 and
wife." To apply Section 2(a) in bigamy would be absurd because only the guilty parties would
(3) for the RTC to direct the Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City to annotate the Japanese
be permitted to sue. In the words of Fujiki, "[i]t is not, of course, difficult to realize that the
Family Court judgment on the Certificate of Marriage between Marinay and Maekara and to
party interested in having a bigamous marriage declared a nullity would be the husband in the
endorse such annotation to the Office of the Administrator and Civil Registrar General in the
National Statistics Office (NSO).6

1
prior, pre-existing marriage."14 Fujiki had material interest and therefore the personality to The Manifestation and Motion of the Office of the Solicitor General and the Letters of
nullify a bigamous marriage. Marinay and Maekara

Fujiki argued that Rule 108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) of the On 30 May 2011, the Court required respondents to file their comment on the petition for
Rules of Court is applicable. Rule 108 is the "procedural implementation" of the Civil Register review.30 The public respondents, the Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City and the
Law (Act No. 3753)15 in relation to Article 413 of the Civil Code.16 The Civil Register Law Administrator and Civil Registrar General of the NSO, participated through the Office of the
imposes a duty on the "successful petitioner for divorce or annulment of marriage to send a Solicitor General. Instead of a comment, the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation and
copy of the final decree of the court to the local registrar of the municipality where the Motion.31
dissolved or annulled marriage was solemnized."17 Section 2 of Rule 108 provides that entries
in the civil registry relating to "marriages," "judgments of annulments of marriage" and
The Solicitor General agreed with the petition. He prayed that the RTCs "pronouncement that
"judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning" are subject to cancellation or
the petitioner failed to comply with x x x A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC x x x be set aside" and that
correction.18 The petition in the RTC sought (among others) to annotate the judgment of the
the case be reinstated in the trial court for further proceedings.32 The Solicitor General argued
Japanese Family Court on the certificate of marriage between Marinay and Maekara.
that Fujiki, as the spouse of the first marriage, is an injured party who can sue to declare the
bigamous marriage between Marinay and Maekara void. The Solicitor General cited Juliano-
Fujikis motion for reconsideration in the RTC also asserted that the trial court "gravely erred" Llave v. Republic33 which held that Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not apply in
when, on its own, it dismissed the petition based on improper venue. Fujiki stated that the RTC cases of bigamy. In Juliano-Llave, this Court explained:
may be confusing the concept of venue with the concept of jurisdiction, because it is lack of
jurisdiction which allows a court to dismiss a case on its own. Fujiki cited Dacoycoy v.
[t]he subsequent spouse may only be expected to take action if he or she had only discovered
Intermediate Appellate Court19 which held that the "trial court cannot pre-empt the defendants
during the connubial period that the marriage was bigamous, and especially if the conjugal
prerogative to object to the improper laying of the venue by motu proprio dismissing the
bliss had already vanished. Should parties in a subsequent marriage benefit from the bigamous
case."20Moreover, petitioner alleged that the trial court should not have "immediately
marriage, it would not be expected that they would file an action to declare the marriage void
dismissed" the petition under Section 5 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC because he substantially
and thus, in such circumstance, the "injured spouse" who should be given a legal remedy is the
complied with the provision.
one in a subsisting previous marriage. The latter is clearly the aggrieved party as the bigamous
marriage not only threatens the financial and the property ownership aspect of the prior
On 2 March 2011, the RTC resolved to deny petitioners motion for reconsideration. In its marriage but most of all, it causes an emotional burden to the prior spouse. The subsequent
Resolution, the RTC stated that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC applies because the petitioner, in effect, marriage will always be a reminder of the infidelity of the spouse and the disregard of the prior
prays for a decree of absolute nullity of marriage.21 The trial court reiterated its two grounds for marriage which sanctity is protected by the Constitution.34
dismissal, i.e. lack of personality to sue and improper venue under Sections 2(a) and 4 of A.M.
No. 02-11-10-SC. The RTC considered Fujiki as a "third person"22 in the proceeding because
The Solicitor General contended that the petition to recognize the Japanese Family Court
he "is not the husband in the decree of divorce issued by the Japanese Family Court, which he
judgment may be made in a Rule 108 proceeding.35 In Corpuz v. Santo Tomas,36 this Court held
now seeks to be judicially recognized, x x x."23 On the other hand, the RTC did not explain its
that "[t]he recognition of the foreign divorce decree may be made in a Rule 108 proceeding
ground of impropriety of venue. It only said that "[a]lthough the Court cited Sec. 4 (Venue) x x
itself, as the object of special proceedings (such as that in Rule 108 of the Rules of Court) is
x as a ground for dismissal of this case[,] it should be taken together with the other ground
precisely to establish the status or right of a party or a particular
cited by the Court x x x which is Sec. 2(a) x x x."24
fact."37 While Corpuzconcerned a foreign divorce decree, in the present case the Japanese
Family Court judgment also affected the civil status of the parties, especially Marinay, who is a
The RTC further justified its motu proprio dismissal of the petition based on Braza v. The City Filipino citizen.
Civil Registrar of Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental.25 The Court in Braza ruled that "[i]n a
special proceeding for correction of entry under Rule 108 (Cancellation or Correction of
The Solicitor General asserted that Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is the procedure to record
Entries in the Original Registry), the trial court has no jurisdiction to nullify marriages x x
"[a]cts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of persons" in the civil registry
x."26 Braza emphasized that the "validity of marriages as well as legitimacy and filiation can be
as required by Article 407 of the Civil Code. In other words, "[t]he law requires the entry in the
questioned only in a direct action seasonably filed by the proper party, and not through a
civil registry of judicial decrees that produce legal consequences upon a persons legal capacity
collateral attack such as [a] petition [for correction of entry] x x x."27
and status x x x."38 The Japanese Family Court judgment directly bears on the civil status of a
Filipino citizen and should therefore be proven as a fact in a Rule 108 proceeding.
The RTC considered the petition as a collateral attack on the validity of marriage between
Marinay and Maekara. The trial court held that this is a "jurisdictional ground" to dismiss the
Moreover, the Solicitor General argued that there is no jurisdictional infirmity in assailing a
petition.28 Moreover, the verification and certification against forum shopping of the petition
void marriage under Rule 108, citing De Castro v. De Castro39 and Nial v. Bayadog40 which
was not authenticated as required under Section 529 of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC. Hence, this also
declared that "[t]he validity of a void marriage may be collaterally attacked."41
warranted the "immediate dismissal" of the petition under the same provision.

2
Marinay and Maekara individually sent letters to the Court to comply with the directive for
them to comment on the petition.42 Maekara wrote that Marinay concealed from him the fact
that she was previously married to Fujiki.43Maekara also denied that he inflicted any form of
violence on Marinay.44 On the other hand, Marinay wrote that she had no reason to oppose the
petition.45 She would like to maintain her silence for fear that anything she say might cause
misunderstanding between her and Fujiki.46
The Issues
Petitioner raises the following legal issues:
(1) Whether the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and
Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) is applicable.
(2) Whether a husband or wife of a prior marriage can file a petition to recognize a
foreign judgment nullifying the subsequent marriage between his or her spouse and
a foreign citizen on the ground of bigamy.
(3) Whether the Regional Trial Court can recognize the foreign judgment in a
proceeding for cancellation or correction of entries in the Civil Registry under Rule
108 of the Rules of Court.
The Ruling of the Court
We grant the petition.
The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable
Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) does not apply in a petition to recognize a foreign
judgment relating to the status of a marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign
country. Moreover, in Juliano-Llave v. Republic,47 this Court held that the rule in A.M. No. 02-
11-10-SC that only the husband or wife can file a declaration of nullity or annulment of
marriage "does not apply if the reason behind the petition is bigamy."48
I.
For Philippine courts to recognize a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage where
one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign country, the petitioner only needs to prove the foreign
judgment as a fact under the Rules of Court. To be more specific, a copy of the foreign
judgment may be admitted in evidence and proven as a fact under Rule 132, Sections 24 and
25, in relation to Rule 39, Section 48(b) of the Rules of Court.49 Petitioner may prove the
Japanese Family Court judgment through (1) an official publication or (2) a certification or
copy attested by the officer who has custody of the judgment. If the office which has custody is
in a foreign country such as Japan, the certification may be made by the proper diplomatic or
consular officer of the Philippine foreign service in Japan and authenticated by the seal of
office.50
3
To hold that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC applies to a petition for recognition of foreign judgment
would mean that the trial court and the parties should follow its provisions, including the form
and contents of the petition,51 the service of summons,52 the investigation of the public
prosecutor,53 the setting of pre-trial,54 the trial55 and the judgment of the trial court.56 This is
absurd because it will litigate the case anew. It will defeat the purpose of recognizing foreign
judgments, which is "to limit repetitive litigation on claims and issues."57 The interpretation of
the RTC is tantamount to relitigating the case on the merits. In Mijares v. Raada,58 this Court
explained that "[i]f every judgment of a foreign court were reviewable on the merits, the
plaintiff would be forced back on his/her original cause of action, rendering immaterial the
previously concluded litigation."59
A foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage affects the civil status, condition and
legal capacity of its parties. However, the effect of a foreign judgment is not automatic. To
extend the effect of a foreign judgment in the Philippines, Philippine courts must determine if
the foreign judgment is consistent with domestic public policy and other mandatory
laws.60 Article 15 of the Civil Code provides that "[l]aws relating to family rights and duties, or
to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the
Philippines, even though living abroad." This is the rule of lex nationalii in private
international law. Thus, the Philippine State may require, for effectivity in the Philippines,
recognition by Philippine courts of a foreign judgment affecting its citizen, over whom it
exercises personal jurisdiction relating to the status, condition and legal capacity of such
citizen.
A petition to recognize a foreign judgment declaring a marriage void does not require
relitigation under a Philippine court of the case as if it were a new petition for declaration of
nullity of marriage. Philippine courts cannot presume to know the foreign laws under which the
foreign judgment was rendered. They cannot substitute their judgment on the status, condition
and legal capacity of the foreign citizen who is under the jurisdiction of another state. Thus,
Philippine courts can only recognize the foreign judgment as a fact according to the rules of
evidence.
Section 48(b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides that a foreign judgment or final order
against a person creates a "presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their
successors in interest by a subsequent title." Moreover, Section 48 of the Rules of Court states
that "the judgment or final order may be repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of
notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact." Thus, Philippine courts
exercise limited review on foreign judgments. Courts are not allowed to delve into the merits
of a foreign judgment. Once a foreign judgment is admitted and proven in a Philippine court, it
can only be repelled on grounds external to its merits, i.e. , "want of jurisdiction, want of notice
to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact." The rule on limited review
embodies the policy of efficiency and the protection of party expectations, 61 as well as
respecting the jurisdiction of other states.62
Since 1922 in Adong v. Cheong Seng Gee,63 Philippine courts have recognized foreign divorce
decrees between a Filipino and a foreign citizen if they are successfully proven under the rules
of evidence.64 Divorce involves the dissolution of a marriage, but the recognition of a foreign
divorce decree does not involve the extended procedure under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC or the
rules of ordinary trial. While the Philippines does not have a divorce law, Philippine courts
may, however, recognize a foreign divorce decree under the second paragraph of Article 26 of
the Family Code, to capacitate a Filipino citizen to remarry when his or her foreign spouse
obtained a divorce decree abroad.65
There is therefore no reason to disallow Fujiki to simply prove as a fact the Japanese Family
Court judgment nullifying the marriage between Marinay and Maekara on the ground of
bigamy. While the Philippines has no divorce law, the Japanese Family Court judgment is fully
consistent with Philippine public policy, as bigamous marriages are declared void from the
beginning under Article 35(4) of the Family Code. Bigamy is a crime under Article 349 of the
Revised Penal Code. Thus, Fujiki can prove the existence of the Japanese Family Court
judgment in accordance with Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25, in relation to Rule 39, Section
48(b) of the Rules of Court.
II.
Since the recognition of a foreign judgment only requires proof of fact of the judgment, it may
be made in a special proceeding for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry
under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. Rule 1, Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides that "[a]
special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a
particular fact." Rule 108 creates a remedy to rectify facts of a persons life which are recorded
by the State pursuant to the Civil Register Law or Act No. 3753. These are facts of public
consequence such as birth, death or marriage,66 which the State has an interest in recording. As
noted by the Solicitor General, in Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas this Court declared that "[t]he
recognition of the foreign divorce decree may be made in a Rule 108 proceeding itself, as the
object of special proceedings (such as that in Rule 108 of the Rules of Court) is precisely to
establish the status or right of a party or a particular fact."67
Rule 108, Section 1 of the Rules of Court states:
Sec. 1. Who may file petition. Any person interested in any act, event, order or
decree concerning the civil status of persons which has been recorded in the civil
register, may file a verified petition for the cancellation or correction of any entry relating
thereto, with the Regional Trial Court of the province where the corresponding civil registry is
located. (Emphasis supplied)
Fujiki has the personality to file a petition to recognize the Japanese Family Court judgment
nullifying the marriage between Marinay and Maekara on the ground of bigamy because the
judgment concerns his civil status as married to Marinay. For the same reason he has the
personality to file a petition under Rule 108 to cancel the entry of marriage between Marinay
and Maekara in the civil registry on the basis of the decree of the Japanese Family Court.
There is no doubt that the prior spouse has a personal and material interest in maintaining the
integrity of the marriage he contracted and the property relations arising from it. There is also
no doubt that he is interested in the cancellation of an entry of a bigamous marriage in the civil
registry, which compromises the public record of his marriage. The interest derives from the
substantive right of the spouse not only to preserve (or dissolve, in limited instances 68) his most
intimate human relation, but also to protect his property interests that arise by operation of law
4
the moment he contracts marriage.69 These property interests in marriage include the right to be
supported "in keeping with the financial capacity of the family"70 and preserving the property
regime of the marriage.71
Property rights are already substantive rights protected by the Constitution,72 but a spouses
right in a marriage extends further to relational rights recognized under Title III ("Rights and
Obligations between Husband and Wife") of the Family Code. 73 A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC cannot
"diminish, increase, or modify" the substantive right of the spouse to maintain the integrity of
his marriage.74 In any case, Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC preserves this substantive
right by limiting the personality to sue to the husband or the wife of the union recognized by
law.
Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not preclude a spouse of a subsisting marriage to
question the validity of a subsequent marriage on the ground of bigamy. On the contrary, when
Section 2(a) states that "[a] petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be
filed solely by the husband or the wife"75it refers to the husband or the wife of the
subsisting marriage. Under Article 35(4) of the Family Code, bigamous marriages are void
from the beginning. Thus, the parties in a bigamous marriage are neither the husband nor the
wife under the law. The husband or the wife of the prior subsisting marriage is the one who has
the personality to file a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage under
Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC.
Article 35(4) of the Family Code, which declares bigamous marriages void from the beginning,
is the civil aspect of Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code,76 which penalizes bigamy. Bigamy
is a public crime. Thus, anyone can initiate prosecution for bigamy because any citizen has an
interest in the prosecution and prevention of crimes.77 If anyone can file a criminal action
which leads to the declaration of nullity of a bigamous marriage, 78 there is more reason to
confer personality to sue on the husband or the wife of a subsisting marriage. The prior spouse
does not only share in the public interest of prosecuting and preventing crimes, he is also
personally interested in the purely civil aspect of protecting his marriage.
When the right of the spouse to protect his marriage is violated, the spouse is clearly an injured
party and is therefore interested in the judgment of the suit.79 Juliano-Llave ruled that the prior
spouse "is clearly the aggrieved party as the bigamous marriage not only threatens the financial
and the property ownership aspect of the prior marriage but most of all, it causes an emotional
burden to the prior spouse."80 Being a real party in interest, the prior spouse is entitled to sue in
order to declare a bigamous marriage void. For this purpose, he can petition a court to
recognize a foreign judgment nullifying the bigamous marriage and judicially declare as a fact
that such judgment is effective in the Philippines. Once established, there should be no more
impediment to cancel the entry of the bigamous marriage in the civil registry.
III.
In Braza v. The City Civil Registrar of Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental, this Court held
that a "trial court has no jurisdiction to nullify marriages" in a special proceeding for
cancellation or correction of entry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.81 Thus, the "validity of
marriage[] x x x can be questioned only in a direct action" to nullify the marriage. 82 The RTC
relied on Braza in dismissing the petition for recognition of foreign judgment as a collateral
attack on the marriage between Marinay and Maekara.
Braza is not applicable because Braza does not involve a recognition of a foreign judgment
nullifying a bigamous marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of the foreign country.
the marriage while the foreign spouse is free to marry under the laws of his or her country. The
correction is made by extending in the Philippines the effect of the foreign divorce decree,
which is already effective in the country where it was rendered. The second paragraph of
Article 26 of the Family Code is based on this Courts decision in Van Dorn v. Romillo90 which
declared that the Filipino spouse "should not be discriminated against in her own country if the
ends of justice are to be served."91

To be sure, a petition for correction or cancellation of an entry in the civil registry cannot
The principle in Article 26 of the Family Code applies in a marriage between a Filipino and a
substitute for an action to invalidate a marriage. A direct action is necessary to prevent
foreign citizen who obtains a foreign judgment nullifying the marriage on the ground of
circumvention of the substantive and procedural safeguards of marriage under the Family
bigamy. The Filipino spouse may file a petition abroad to declare the marriage void on the
Code, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC and other related laws. Among these safeguards are the
ground of bigamy. The principle in the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code
requirement of proving the limited grounds for the dissolution of marriage,83 support pendente
applies because the foreign spouse, after the foreign judgment nullifying the marriage, is
lite of the spouses and children,84 the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of
capacitated to remarry under the laws of his or her country. If the foreign judgment is not
the spouses,85 and the investigation of the public prosecutor to determine collusion.86 A direct
recognized in the Philippines, the Filipino spouse will be discriminatedthe foreign spouse
action for declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage is also necessary to prevent
can remarry while the Filipino spouse cannot remarry.
circumvention of the jurisdiction of the Family Courts under the Family Courts Act of 1997
(Republic Act No. 8369), as a petition for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil
registry may be filed in the Regional Trial Court "where the corresponding civil registry is Under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, Philippine courts are
located."87 In other words, a Filipino citizen cannot dissolve his marriage by the mere expedient empowered to correct a situation where the Filipino spouse is still tied to the marriage while
of changing his entry of marriage in the civil registry. the foreign spouse is free to marry. Moreover, notwithstanding Article 26 of the Family Code,
Philippine courts already have jurisdiction to extend the effect of a foreign judgment in the
Philippines to the extent that the foreign judgment does not contravene domestic public policy.
However, this does not apply in a petition for correction or cancellation of a civil registry entry
A critical difference between the case of a foreign divorce decree and a foreign judgment
based on the recognition of a foreign judgment annulling a marriage where one of the parties is
nullifying a bigamous marriage is that bigamy, as a ground for the nullity of marriage, is fully
a citizen of the foreign country. There is neither circumvention of the substantive and
consistent with Philippine public policy as expressed in Article 35(4) of the Family Code and
procedural safeguards of marriage under Philippine law, nor of the jurisdiction of Family
Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. The Filipino spouse has the option to undergo full trial
Courts under R.A. No. 8369. A recognition of a foreign judgment is not an action to nullify a
by filing a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, but this
marriage. It is an action for Philippine courts to recognize the effectivity of a foreign
is not the only remedy available to him or her. Philippine courts have jurisdiction to recognize
judgment, which presupposes a case which was already tried and decided under foreign
a foreign judgment nullifying a bigamous marriage, without prejudice to a criminal prosecution
law. The procedure in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not apply in a petition to recognize a
for bigamy.
foreign judgment annulling a bigamous marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of the
foreign country. Neither can R.A. No. 8369 define the jurisdiction of the foreign court.
In the recognition of foreign judgments, Philippine courts are incompetent to substitute their
judgment on how a case was decided under foreign law. They cannot decide on the "family
Article 26 of the Family Code confers jurisdiction on Philippine courts to extend the effect of a
rights and duties, or on the status, condition and legal capacity" of the foreign citizen who is a
foreign divorce decree to a Filipino spouse without undergoing trial to determine the validity of
party to the foreign judgment. Thus, Philippine courts are limited to the question of whether to
the dissolution of the marriage. The second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code
extend the effect of a foreign judgment in the Philippines. In a foreign judgment relating to the
provides that "[w]here a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly
status of a marriage involving a citizen of a foreign country, Philippine courts only decide
celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating
whether to extend its effect to the Filipino party, under the rule of lex nationalii expressed in
him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine
Article 15 of the Civil Code.
law." In Republic v. Orbecido,88 this Court recognized the legislative intent of the second
paragraph of Article 26 which is "to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse
remains married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is no longer married to the For this purpose, Philippine courts will only determine (1) whether the foreign judgment is
Filipino spouse"89 under the laws of his or her country. The second paragraph of Article 26 of inconsistent with an overriding public policy in the Philippines; and (2) whether any alleging
the Family Code only authorizes Philippine courts to adopt the effects of a foreign divorce party is able to prove an extrinsic ground to repel the foreign judgment, i.e. want of
decree precisely because the Philippines does not allow divorce. Philippine courts cannot try jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. If
the case on the merits because it is tantamount to trying a case for divorce. there is neither inconsistency with public policy nor adequate proof to repel the judgment,
Philippine courts should, by default, recognize the foreign judgment as part of the comity of
nations. Section 48(b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court states that the foreign judgment is already
The second paragraph of Article 26 is only a corrective measure to address the anomaly that
"presumptive evidence of a right between the parties." Upon recognition of the foreign
results from a marriage between a Filipino, whose laws do not allow divorce, and a foreign
judgment, this right becomes conclusive and the judgment serves as the basis for the correction
citizen, whose laws allow divorce. The anomaly consists in the Filipino spouse being tied to

5
or cancellation of entry in the civil registry. The recognition of the foreign judgment nullifying
a bigamous marriage is a subsequent event that establishes a new status, right and fact 92 that
needs to be reflected in the civil registry. Otherwise, there will be an inconsistency between the
recognition of the effectivity of the foreign judgment and the public records in the Philippines.1wphi1

However, the recognition of a foreign judgment nullifying a bigamous marriage is without

prejudice to prosecution for bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. 93 The
recognition of a foreign judgment nullifying a bigamous marriage is not a ground for extinction
of criminal liability under Articles 89 and 94 of the Revised Penal Code. Moreover, under
Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code, "[t]he term of prescription [of the crime of bigamy] shall
not run when the offender is absent from the Philippine archipelago."

Since A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is inapplicable, the Court no longer sees the need to address the
questions on venue and the contents and form of the petition under Sections 4 and 5,
respectively, of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC.

WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. The Order dated 31 January 2011 and the
Resolution dated 2 March 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 107, Quezon City, in Civil
Case No. Q-11-68582 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court
is ORDERED to REINSTATE the petition for further proceedings in accordance with this
Decision.

SO ORDERED.